Brooke Nickel1,2, Tessa Copp1,2, Meagan Brennan3,4, Rachel Farber1, Kirsten McCaffery1,2, Nehmat Houssami1. 1. Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2. Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. School of Medicine Sydney, The University of Notre Dame, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast density (BD) is an independent risk factor for breast cancer and reduces the sensitivity of mammography. This systematic review aims to synthesize evidence from existing studies to understand the impact of BD information and/or notification on women's cognitive, psychological, and behavioral outcomes. METHODS: Studies were identified via relevant database searches up to March 2020. Two authors evaluated the eligibility of studies with verification from the study team, extracted and crosschecked data, and assessed the risk of bias. RESULTS: Of the 1134 titles identified, 29 studies were included. Twenty-three studies were quantitative, including only 1 randomized controlled trial of women receiving BD information, and 6 were qualitative. Twenty-seven studies were conducted in the United States, with 19 conducted post-BD legislation. The overall results in terms of BD awareness, knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, and intentions were heterogeneous across included studies, with the strongest consistency demonstrated regarding the importance of communication with and involvement of health-care professionals. Together, the studies did, however, highlight that there is still limited awareness of BD in the community, especially in more socioeconomic disadvantaged communities, and limited knowledge about what BD means and the implications for women. Importantly, BD information in the context of overall breast cancer risk has not yet been studied. CONCLUSIONS: There are important gaps in the understanding of the impact of BD information or notification on women and how best to communicate BD information to women. More high-quality evidence to inform both current and future practice related to BD is still needed.
BACKGROUND: Breast density (BD) is an independent risk factor for breast cancer and reduces the sensitivity of mammography. This systematic review aims to synthesize evidence from existing studies to understand the impact of BD information and/or notification on women's cognitive, psychological, and behavioral outcomes. METHODS: Studies were identified via relevant database searches up to March 2020. Two authors evaluated the eligibility of studies with verification from the study team, extracted and crosschecked data, and assessed the risk of bias. RESULTS: Of the 1134 titles identified, 29 studies were included. Twenty-three studies were quantitative, including only 1 randomized controlled trial of women receiving BD information, and 6 were qualitative. Twenty-seven studies were conducted in the United States, with 19 conducted post-BD legislation. The overall results in terms of BD awareness, knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, and intentions were heterogeneous across included studies, with the strongest consistency demonstrated regarding the importance of communication with and involvement of health-care professionals. Together, the studies did, however, highlight that there is still limited awareness of BD in the community, especially in more socioeconomic disadvantaged communities, and limited knowledge about what BD means and the implications for women. Importantly, BD information in the context of overall breast cancer risk has not yet been studied. CONCLUSIONS: There are important gaps in the understanding of the impact of BD information or notification on women and how best to communicate BD information to women. More high-quality evidence to inform both current and future practice related to BD is still needed.
Authors: Alsacia L Pacsi-Sepulveda; Rachel C Shelton; Carmen B Rodriguez; Arielle T Coq; Parisa Tehranifar Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kelly A Kyanko; Jessica Hoag; Susan H Busch; Jenerius A Aminawung; Xiao Xu; Ilana B Richman; Cary P Gross Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Nitya S Moothathu; Liane E Philpotts; Susan H Busch; Cary P Gross; Lawrence H Staib; Regina J Hooley Journal: Breast J Date: 2016-12-10 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert Rosenberg; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Linn A Abraham; Steven H Taplin; Mark Dignan; Gary Cutter; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-02-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Christine M Gunn; Nancy R Kressin; Kristina Cooper; Cinthya Marturano; Karen M Freund; Tracy A Battaglia Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Rebecca E Smith; Brian Sprague; Louise M Henderson; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist; Karen J Wernli; Tracy Onega; Karen Schifferdecker; Gloria Jackson-Nefertiti; Dianne Johnson; Jill Budesky; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 6.240
Authors: Erin J Aiello Bowles; Suzanne C O'Neill; Tengfei Li; Sarah Knerr; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Marc D Schwartz; Jinani Jayasekera; Kathleen Leppig; Kelly Ehrlich; David Farrell; Hongyuan Gao; Amanda L Graham; George Luta; Karen J Wernli Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 2.681